Our engaging and energetic conversation this week posed many questions, and may have even answered a few of them! By breaking up into small groups at the beginning of class, we identified some of the Big Questions we wanted to discuss, and shaped the opening statements collectively. The definition of evangelicalism started off our conversation. Although a seemingly specific question, we soon found that the difference between the theological and missionary definitions of evangelical Christianity ran parallel to the distinction between dogmatic and cultural histories of the religion. We addressed Heyrman's implicit definition of evangelicalism, and differed as to whether her use of anthropology as a lens of analysis was or was not appropriate for this topic.
We struggled to understand the actors and architects of the changes Heyrman describes. There were a number of nuances and incarnations to this conversation. Heyrman writes with a tone of "before" and "after", and some of us felt that the moment of change itself was unfortunately lacking from her descriptions. We also discussed the question of clergy and their potential overlap with gentry and the ruling elite. How much, and at what times, could clergy be equated with the dominant class? The crux of this question, which permeated most of class, was that of causation between changes in the evangelical churches and the Southern social order. Was it one of mutual influence? Did it change over time? Was the church selling out to demands of the social order? Was the social order changed by the church?
We identified some important gaps in Heyrman's text where more careful and explicit explanation and framing might have helped us evaluate these questions. By and large, though, I think they are questions that are inherently raised by a book such as this, which foregrounds race, gender and age, and uses class as a consistent undercurrent implicitly running through the whole piece. Because this book does not foreground class, it is more of a challenge for us to find it and examine it. Some of our questions seem to suggest that Heyrman's technique was not always successful. In other ways, though, she seems to view class as an important and deeply engrained part of the society of the Early American South, one that perhaps cannot be parsed from the big picture.
At the end of class, we had a brief chance to compare the implications of Heyrman and other writers we have read for this class. I was particularly interested in the connection with Bouton, and whether their books, although very different in material focus, are in fact of a piece. Both begin with the broad-reaching and radical thinking of the pre-revolution years, adn trace these ideals' gradual (and often insidious) erosion toward the mean. Because our readings are often quite disparate from each other, I think it was important to look at how they might connect with one another, and I hope we continue to make a point to keep those conversations active.
We are also experimenting with new ways to organize class, and this week felt very rewarding in that respect. In the future, I would propose that we meet in small groups initially, each group give a 2 or 3 minute opening statement, and then make a clear agenda resulting from those points. Our small groups at the beginning of class yesterday clearly prepared us for our active discussion, but I felt that the order of our points was not entirely logical. For example, it might have made sense to save the conversation about what was not in Heyrman until after we had had a chance to more carefully discuss what she did do, and why. Perhaps if opening statements become more of a group effort, the task of organizing our initial points under two or three main topic headings for the agenda could be the task of the opening people?
Happy St Patrick's Day.
Print this post
No comments:
Post a Comment